A Review of Christopher Ferrara's: COVID Vaccines, the Common Good, and Moral Liceity: A Response to Professor de Mattei

 +

JMJ

Introduction

Christopher Ferrara has written a response to Professor de Mattei's article on  the licety of the Covid-19 vaccines.

As I did with Mr. Blackshaw, I intend to write a summary review of his arguments in support of his conclusions.

I know that sounds very formal, however I will admit that I was astounded at the length of the three articles when I pulled them into a word processor (34 pages) and concluded that,while important, this will take some time to do properly.

I will admit that, I had to revert to an old-school method for assessing Mr. Ferrara's article: I printed it out and used a high-lighter system to zero-out anything that was not central to the thesis.

Here are links to my brief commentary, Rorate's original posting and Mr. Ferrara's articles.

 

Tradicat: Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part K (De Mattei)

Rorate-Caeli: Roberto de Mattei - Is the COVID vaccine morally licit for Catholics?

Catholic Family News: COVID Vaccines, the Common Good, and Moral Liceity Part 1

Catholic Family News: COVID Vaccines, the Common Good, and Moral Liceity Part 2

Catholic Family News: COVID Vaccines, the Common Good, and Moral Liceity Part 3

Prof. de Mattei -   On the moral liceity of the vaccintaion against COVID

Overview of On the moral liceity of the vaccination against Covid

Professor de Mattei's booklet is divided into 12 chapters related to the vaccination against COVID-19.

Table of Contents from de Mattei's booklet

 

 Moral Theology

In the first 8 chapters, he delves into the moral theology.  After my quick review I have reached the conclusion that it is completely consistent with everything I've read about the moral issue of cooperation with evil, vaccinations etc.

 Risk to Health

Next he touches on the argument against vaccination based on the risk to one's health etc.  This is interesting, but not news to me.

The math needs to go beyond the normal stats (see link here) to work out the risk of serious chronic health conditions post covid.  

 

Why this question?  

 

I have some friends who work in healthcare and one has seen the x-ray films of a post-covid young man and the other, a nurse, has listened to the lungs.  The former had significant scarring, the latter was difficult to describe. The word she used was wet. When I asked why they don't drain the lung her response was simple: you can't drain the cells.  The liquid is caused by the virus damaging the cells as it reproduces - but it doesn't necessarily result in liquid pooling in the lungs and sloshing around.  It is like having tiny little laundry detergent packets of fluid from your damaged lungs, but you can't cough it up.

Hence the reason for the dry cough.

This damage is significant and only with time will we see if the younger victims recover or if this remains with them for the remainder of their life.

Here's a comparison that I found at WUSA9.

• Healthy lungs (left) are uniform with a little bit of gray to this, showing the gas exchange transpiring.  
• Lungs of a COVID-19 patient (middle) are more opaque and white, which shows inflammation and an active infection.
• Smokers' lungs (right) may have a portion that's dark black which can indicate emphysema.

 So, now the risk of fatality is only one factor to consider. Given the long-term health effects, we need to consider what is the risk of hosptialization.  This will be harder since the IFR deals with the ratio of deaths to infection, not the risk of hospitalization to infection.

So let's get into it eh?

As of June 11, 2021, in Canada the total number of hospitalizations is 73,033 and  icu admissions is 13,752.  This is out of 1,396,981 cases.

Case Hospitalization Rate (CHR): 73,033 / 1,396,981 = 5.23%

ICU Admission Rate: 13,752 / 1,396,981 = 0.98%

Case Fatality Rate: 25,904/(25,904+1,356,531) = 1.87%

What does this mean?  It means that if diagnosed, you become part of the cases we know about and you have a ~5% chance of being hospitalized, ~1% of being on a ventilator and 1.87% change of dying.  By the way, I seem to recall the hospitalization number was higher earlier in the pandemic.

At this point I'm not certain how to untangle the CHR work work out something similar to the IFR for chronic health conditions post-covid.

What it does mean is that the threat to health is higher if you have a bad case and survive.  So not only could you die a pre-mature death, if you survive, after 25 days you could have the lungs of a 6 pack-a-day smoker.

Now the risk of death is significant and the risk of long-term chronic conditions even higher.  Beyond that there are other reasons the justify the remote cooperation with evil.  Such as being able to earn a living.  Yep,that's in there - I usually stick with the common-good statement, but there are more than one reason that can justify being vaccinated. 

Mandatory Vaccination

Prof. Mattei also delves into the ability of the government to mandate vaccination.  This is new to me, but he lays out some rationale and historic examples.  I'm confident that this will cause a stir.

Our Responsibilities

Next he discusses our responsibilities and the implications of the arguments put forward by those who disagree with the moral theology.  He quotes Dr. Shaw which I find very perceptive:

Refusing to do intrinsically evil actions will occasionally require heroism, but it is always possible. Avoiding all cooperation with evil, even remote material cooperation is simply impossible. I cannot vote, pay taxes, use the internet, open a bank account, or patronise a large shop, without remote material cooperation with evil: abortion, usury, unjust wars, pornography, slave labour, and so on. We must protest, of course, but even our protests can lose their force if we are protesting about everything. Source: Joseph Shaw's Blog

The Gospel

He then finishes with some references to scripture.

Tradical's Conclusion

I'm comfortable with the moral theology stance on the liceity of inoculation with tainted vaccines. A quick read of the other elements seems consistent with Church Teaching, but I would want to review it in more detail before making a definitive statement. 

This topic is charged with high-octane emotions, so I will review Mr. Ferrara's article with an eye to confirmation bias.

Review of Mr. Ferrara's Article

Introduction

The first thing that struck me was the volume of Mr. Ferrara's response.

I get that he's a lawyer and in my mind I can hear him arguing his position in front of a judge and jury.  However, to me it seemed that his arguments miss the key point of whether or not it is licit to be inoculated with a morally tainted vaccine.

For this study I want to focus on Mr. Ferrara's key points specifically on the liceity of vaccines following Catholic Doctrine.  The liceity of mandatory vaccines I will leave aside for my study on the interactions and authorities of Church and State.

Here's a complete table of contents for reference I will be focusing on the sections highlighted in purple.

Table of Contents    2

Links    3

COVID Vaccines, the Common Good, and Moral Liceity: A Response to Professor de Mattei — Part I    4

Introduction    4

COVID-19 Lockdowns: A Crime Against Humanity    5

Obscuring the Truth with Statistical Dishonesty    6

The Common Good Does Not Require Abortion-Derived COVID Vaccines    7

Inexplicable Naivete Regarding the COVID-19 Regimes    9

Conclusion    12

COVID Vaccines, the Common Good, and Moral Liceity: A Response to Professor de Mattei — Part II    15

Vaccine Fanaticism versus the Common Good    15

MLV’s “Arguments from Reason”    18

A Failure to Demonstrate Grave Necessity    19

“Remote” Cooperation    21

COVID Vaccines, the Common Good, and Moral Liceity: A Response to Professor de Mattei — Part III    25

An Astonishing Admission    25

Specious Analogies, Arbitrary Distinctions    27

A Misstatement of the Issue    30

A Rule of the Magisterium?    31

Defending a Structure of Sin While Demeaning Its Opponents    34

Conclusion    35

Recap

In part 1, Mr. Ferrara introduces with his respect and regard for Prof. Mattei and sets the stage for his criticism of his booklet.  

First, he launches into the lockdowns, failing to make a key distinction and inadvertently lying with statistics.  

The distinction is whether or not the leaders made decisions on restrictions like lockdowns based on reason after assessing the information available to them versus whether they were mistaken.  Even if they were mistaken, which will require the passage of time to assess, if their decision met the critieria, it was still a licit law.

___

 With respect to the lying with statistics, I am going to give Mr. Ferrara the benefit of the doubt on the following errors:

1. He compares the untreated lethality of Cholera with the treated lethality of COVID-19.  This is a gross and ugly error and undermines his objectivity in this argument.  The treated infection rate for Cholera (which is a bacteria) is less than 1% (wikipedia).  
2. He cites data from Chile where the outbreak continued inspite of massive vaccination levels.  The only problem is, looking at his reference, it shows that CoronaVac is 56.5% effective with both shots, but only 3% after the first shot. (CNBC). So not only did Mr. Ferrara not notice that CoronaVac not likely to stop the outbreak by itself, the first vaccine is practically useless.  At this point at best Mr. Ferrara has a huge confirmation bias, doesn't understand statistics or at worst he is lying with statistics.
3. The final mistake that I will cover is the comparison the fatality vs total population between countries.  This is a mistake because it doesn't tell us about the lethality of the pathogen (IFR), but the fatalities within a population (infected and non-infected alike). In considering measures to combat a pathogen, the leaders need to consider the threat to the population of their obligation to the 'common-good'. Taking Mr. Ferrara's earlier comments about Cholera, since it has a similar fatality rate with treated COVD-19 - following his logic the measures taken were warranted.
   

While he is an excellent lawyer and done much good, at this point, I will set aside any and all arguments made by Mr. Ferrara based on statistics because he is clearly out of his depth.

This does considerable damage to his entire case.  If it were in a court of law, he would be decimated, but he had decided to plead his case in the court of public opinion.  Based on my observations over the past year, the jury in that court is easily swayed by so called "expert" opinion and refuses to listen to opposing views.

Mr. Ferrara goes to length to imply malfeasance on the part of Pharma companies, ineptitude of Government officials and frankly stirs the conspiracy theory pot. Frankly, I am not interested in whether or not various non-vaccine treatments are effective to any degree.  That he brings in his own father's death is sad, but useful.  

His account is that his 96 year old father received hydroxychloroquine and zinc after contracting COVID-19, the death certificate states that death was due to respiratory failure due to COVID-19, but Mr. Ferrara claims that he showed no symptoms after receiving hydroxychloroquine and died of kidney failure due to chronic dehydration.

Let's unpack the facts:

• Father's age: 96y
• Contracted COVID-19
• Treated with hydroxychloroquine and zinc
• No symptoms after administration of hydroxychloroquine
• Died
• Cause of death
• Death Certificate: respiratory failure due to COVID-19
• Mr. Ferrara: kidney failure due to chronic dehydration
• Impute dishonesty based on the higher hospital reimbursement rates for COVID-19 related deaths.

This brings up a number of thoughts and questions:

1. His father was symptomatic pre-administration of hydroxychloroquine.
2. How does Mr. Ferrara know that he died of kidney failure due to dehyration? 
3. A critical mind would ask: 
1. Does hydroxychloroquine mask symptoms?
2. How does he know that his father dehydrated?  Was he there and if so, why did he allow this to occur?
3. Did Mr. Ferrara listen to his father's lungs before he died after the cessation of symptoms?
4. Was an autopsy performed?
4. Did his father die in a hospital or a care-home?
5. How do hospitals and care-homes benefit from the death of a patient?
   

So the introduction of the personal experience, doesn't actually provide any evidence.  It provides questions that, if I were cross-examining Mr. Ferrara, I would make certain to ask because his testimony obviously doesn't tell the whole story.

So, Mr. Ferrara seems to be suffering from inexplicable naivete regarding COVID-19, statistics and the diagnosis of disease states.

Finally, near the end of part 1 Mr. Ferrara delves into the SPARS conspiracy theory quagmire. Suffice to say, this exercise is simply the 'war gaming' of a situation and trying to determine what challenges will emerge and how to handle them. It is part of planning and there are similar exercises that have been held over the year and particularly after the first SARS outbreak. 

What is not mentioned is that our leaders would be negligent if they did not plan for cases such as this ... especially after the earlier SARS outbreak.

___

In part 2, Mr.Ferrara at first delves into mask and social distancing mandates,  and vacci-fascination. He also asserts that there is 'absolutely no scientific basis' for a threat to the common good. 

Well, I already know not to trust his opinions concerning statistics.  

The fact remains that COVID-19 creates a grave necessity because it theatens the general population with the more vulnerable (as is normal) being disproportionately more affected. 

In their blind rage against anything with the word 'abortion' attached to it, the pro-lifers have put forward the principle that since it 'only' affects the elderly (who are going to die soon anyway) and sick, then we shouldn't take measures, including inoculation with morally tainted vaccines.

The pro-euthanasia proponents would make the same case for not vaccinating that population and letting nature take its case. 

As I said in other posts, everyone has a Catholic right to life, shortening it by deliberate inaction is not morally permissible.

The pandemic constitutes a grave necessity, however it is not the only necessity that it creates. If a person is unable to earn a living unless they are vaccinated, it is also considered a grave necessity.  So taking a myoptic view of the Catholic principles involved leads to errors in judgment.

With respect to the principles of moral theology put forward by Rome et al.  Mr. Ferrara's analysis basically sucks and I'm disappointed in him. Attached below is a paragraph from his article with my comments interleaves.

The argument in either form fails on all counts: (1) the material cooperation is not remote but a direct participation in an illicit enterprise whose existence depends upon child-murder (Tradicat: False, ignorse both the causal and moral chain); (2) the material cooperation is directly intended by the recipient of the abortion-derived vaccines;(Tradicat: False, Catholics are seeking immunization, not agreeing with abortion) and (3) even if the cooperation in abortion were remote and non-culpable, there is no grave or proportionate reason to justify recourse to these vaccines, whose efficacy is in doubt and whose harmful effects, both known and unknown, outweigh any supposed benefits for the overwhelming majority of people.(Tradicat: False, here he relies on his faulty understanding of the science and statistics involved.)

So Mr. F has three strikes - he's out. He goes on to cite Don Leone's article and fails miseably to understand that by citing only a partial list of the acts does not make the cooperation in evil less-remote. Following Catholic principles, unless a person agrees with the intention of the original person who committed the murder 50+ years ago, they are in a position of remote cooperation - they are separated by a long link of acts from that original act.

___

 In part 3 Mr. F summarizes his arguments: 

First, the material cooperation with abortion is not remote and “passive” but rather constitutes direct participation in a “structure of sin”: an evil commercial enterprise whose existence depends upon the continuing exploitation of the bodies of murdered children.

Tradicat: This ignores the chain of events linking to the single immoral act that resulted in the creation of the HEK-293 cellline. There is no moral link with the other acts that happen in parallel.


Second, the material cooperation is directly intended by recipients of abortion-derived vaccines who are aware of their inextricable connection to murder and the ongoing exploitation of the victims’ remains, which MLV rather imperiously dismisses as “a problem which is entirely peripheral.” (MLV, p. 52).

Tradicat: This is a farce. If a Catholic intends to seek protection and does not approve of the remote immoral act linked to it by an unbroken causal chain of acts - then they DON"T have a direct intention.

Third, even if the cooperation in evil were merely remote and “passive,” there is no grave or proportionate reason to justify recourse to abortion-derived COVID vaccines in particular, either for the common good (cf. Part I) or the individual’s good (cf. Part II), because their inability to inhibit viral spread is officially admitted, and their harmful effects, both known and unknown, outweigh any supposed benefits for the vast majority of individuals.

Tradicat: I already know that his arguments are flawed and invalid.  So as noted above, 3 strikes and he's out.  However, this isn't baseball, so he would be out on any of these points.

Mr. F devotes 3 pages to "Specious Analogies, Arbitrary Distinctions" and frankly, I'm just about done with this whole article.

I scanned the rest of it and have neither the time, energy or patience to sort through his volumous argumentation. 

I will end this section with one of my maps summarizing the moral theology of cooperation in evil: 

 

Conclusion

To sum up, Mr. Ferrara's understanding of the principles of moral theology, statistics are flawed to the point where his entire argument against the liceity of being inoculated with morally tainted vaccines is invalid.

 For reference have a look at the 'Series - Making Moral Vaccine Decisions'

I do not know about the liceity of forced vaccinations and have no desire to go into that topic unless it happens!

P^3